Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

With the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, Majority Whip Tom Emmer has been making waves as a potential replacement. [Opinion editor's note: As of Wednesday late afternoon, Emmer was planning to run for majority leader.] None other than Rep. Matt Gaetz, while basking in the chaos he helped create by unseating McCarthy, has suggested he would support Emmer as speaker.

And why not? Surely Emmer is a conservative's conservative. Just this past July, he called for vigilance in opposing the "woke" military policies of the Biden administration.

But the last four years reveal a different record.

In 2019, Emmer was one of nine Republicans who sided with a House Democrat amendment to block President Donald Trump's transgender military ban. In 2021, Emmer voted for H.R. 1443, a Democrat-supported measure requiring financial institutions to collect and report application data regarding LGBTQ-owned businesses. In 2022, Emmer sided with disgraced Rep. Liz Cheney in voting to codify same-sex marriage. (McCarthy voted against.)

What about calls to pull back on Ukraine war funding? Gaetz said a "secret side deal" to maintain war funding shows Biden "continues to take Speaker McCarthy's lunch money in every negotiation." Surely Emmer will bring this bloody war to a halt! Except Emmer was Minnesota's only GOP congressional representative to receive an "A" grade from Defending Democracy Together, the brainchild of neoconservative war advocates Sarah Longwell and Bill Kristol. (McCarthy received a "B-.")

With potential successors like Emmer on the table, it's no wonder that congressional Democrats were so quick to follow Gaetz's lead in removing Speaker McCarthy.

Jack Wheeler, Hudson, Wis.

•••

In Tuesday's Star Tribune, Rep. Betty McCollum's response to the vote to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker was, "Why would I vote to enable the ongoing madness and chaos that have consumed the U.S. House since January?" ("Minnesota delegation split on McCarthy," Oct. 3.) I can think of three "whys": 1) McCarthy did the right thing by keeping government open. 2) The process to replace McCarthy will further slow the House's ability to get work done. 3) Shoring up McCarthy would have further diminished the ability of the far right to hold the House hostage. I was hoping the bipartisanship shown in keeping government open was the start of a new paradigm of collaboration between moderates in both parties, but it seems, like Joni Mitchell sang, "that was just a dream some of us had."

Ron Struss, St. Paul

•••

With the passage of the continuing resolution to fund the government, for 45 days we can again pretend that we are a functioning democracy. This was a small victory to be sure, but one in which a large portion of our elected representatives can claim some measure of credit. McCarthy can pretend that he acted as "the adult in the room" by seeking support from Democrats. Most moderate Republicans can breathe a huge sigh of relief that they didn't have to vote on various proposals to gut the social safety net. Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats get to wear the mantle of statesmanship for their willingness to compromise and "do the people's work." The only clear loser in the process was the chaos wing of the Republican Party. But those members had no real intent of solving anything, nor passing any legislation. Certainly, even they knew that their proposed "solutions" were dead on arrival in the Senate. Now they can again take up the urgent matter of fabricating enough evidence to impeach President Joe Biden and placate Donald Trump.

Amid the bipartisan backslapping, perhaps we should pause and think about what we are celebrating. For one glorious day, Congress actually did its job! Seen this way, the passage of the continuing resolution was an incredibly Pyrrhic victory. Was a budget actually passed? Are we now on a path to fiscal solvency? Will we need to suffer through this political posturing again in 45 days? While we were wasting time on what should have been a routine function of government, were other problems ignored? I'm glad that the government will continue to function for a while, but I will not celebrate on the rare day when Congress actually serves the needs of the American people. Rather, I am sorry that what should be routine is now deemed to be exceptional and worth celebrating. We deserve so much more.

Timothy Neil McLean, Blaine

I am incredibly proud to live in a progressive state, with policies that benefit all. But Ron Way's ag business commentary accurately identifies Minnesota's greatest embarrassment — how we have rationalized our continuing subsidies for ethanol ("Big Ag must be part of climate crisis solution," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 2).

The industry's arguments that it is needed for energy independence, more efficient than gas and better for the climate are dangerous myths. In fact, the millions of acres of Minnesota's precious farmland that is devoted to producing fuel to burn in our cars is doing significant damage to our climate and waterways.

Two million acres of Minnesota's diverse natural prairie have been converted to agricultural use from 2012 to 2019. Much of this is driven by ethanol "farming," which has grown to almost three million acres in our state. The overuse of fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides is well documented as the primary cause of waterway degradation in our state — impairing almost 60% of our treasured 10,000 lakes. Less well known is the draining impact on our aquifers. Many of these large ethanol farms require heavy use of pumped aquifer water, and the state's 19 ethanol processing plants use massive amounts as well.

The most obvious solution to building back the health of our waterways, environment and our aquifers is to end these nonsensical ethanol subsidies, which now only serve to artificially prop up corn prices. Subsidizing farmers for new wind and solar farms, growing food or re-establishing natural prairie makes infinitely more sense. Hopefully our political leadership will quickly take steps to allow future generations to enjoy our most precious state resources, its pristine air and water, before it's too late.

Mark Andersen, Wayzata

•••

The contention that ethanol and other biofuels can be carbon-neutral is not as straightforward as the Minnesota Biofuels Association would have us accept ("Context missing on this vital fuel," Readers Write, Oct. 4). If biofuels like ethanol are to be considered carbon-neutral, problems with their production and use would have to be ignored. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Climate Portal webpage, while describing ethanol as potentially carbon-neutral, also includes a section that describes points in the production and use that can make it problematic. I am quoting from its page here:

"There are many challenges to making biofuels that are truly carbon neutral. That's because many steps used to create biofuels — fermentation, the energy for processing, transportation, even the fertilizers used to grow plants — may emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases even before the fuels are burned. The farmland used to grow biomass can also have its own climate impacts, especially if it takes the place of CO2-storing forests. This means that the details of how biofuels are made and used are very important for their potential as a climate solution."

And from Way's commentary: "Farmland nitrates are a reason why America's long-sought goal of 'fishable and swimmable waters' won't ever be met, why Minnesota's list of impaired waters keeps growing, and why rural communities spend millions to remove nitrates to make water drinkable."

Ethanol (and wood pellets, which have also been touted as a low-carbon biofuel) in all likelihood are not going to be carbon-neutral and will not contribute to reductions in carbon pollution that we must have to stabilize the climate and preserve our essential water resources. Letters defending purported clean renewable substitutes that really are not clean demonstrate the fact that exemptions and voluntary compliance are not going to be sufficient if we want to be serious about reducing carbon pollution.

Laura Haule, Minneapolis